If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You libs are probably dancing in the streets over all the job cuts and layoffs! As long as same sex sodomites and stoners are happy, right?

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Hey bid. You know how the libs put out that stereotype that all white males who disagree with Obama are just angry racist rednex, who are just bitter and afraid that the country is being taken from them? Well you seem to have fulfilled that stereotype.

Which fulfilling that stereotype absolutely is so harmful. Cause there actually is several policies of his that are not good and should be challenged. But its stuff like you wrote that take legitimate complaints and lump them in with bigoted psycho babble. Which sucks.

The economy is recovering. There's no denying that. This election was important because the President in office during the recovery was going to get credit for it, regardless of the fact that the President has very little to actually do with it. Had Romney won, he probably would have had a pretty simple re-election in 2016. With Obama in office when it happens, the Dems won't have the same advantage, but an advantage none-the-less.

That's a tremendous paragraph. Perfect summary. Every respected study points to significant economic improvement the next few years. If Romney had won it would have changed the narrative and partially deflected the demographic shift. Obama would have been a slightly less inept Carter, the GOP's reputation as economic savior restored, and Romney as incumbent with his party in power only one term might have threatened 55% of the popular vote in 2016. The GOP upside is still greater than Democratic upside.

The way it works now, if the forecasts are accurate, Bush is stamped as even more inept, Obama moves way up the reputation ladder, and 2016 looks something like 2000, an open race with Democrats at small foundational advantage before candidate-to-candidate specifics enter the equation. If it's Hillary, she would figure to own more strength among whites than Obama, who always trailed Hillary in the white working class vote during the 2008 primaries, notably in par 5 states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Hillary lost, of course, due to Obama's team recognizing the delegate potential in par 3 primaries and caucuses, ones that Hillary's strategists all but ignored.

The question would be Hillary's standing among Hispanics and blacks compared to Obama, in turnout and percentage. She seemingly would have a more difficult path to 50+% approval rating, and therefore 50+% of the vote. I'm sure many analysts would assert Hillary could shove the women's vote to 54% of the total, but that's pushing it, IMO. It's fairly well established that women are 51% in midterms and 53% in general elections. I can't foresee a change.

Republicans seemingly would need an edge in candidate popularity. After all, the last time a Republican won the White House in an open race, whites were 81% of the vote. That was 2000. In 2016 it's all but certain to be 70%.

In 2014 I project Republicans to have a good year. As I mentioned, women drop as percentage of the electorate so the SAM (Simplistic Angry Male) messaging doesn't meet natural resistance. Single women don't show up in midterms. Besides, the GOP structural advantage in the House is astounding after recent gerrymandering. Sam Wang estimates their advantage is as high as 5% before one vote is counted. It's inconceivable that Democrats could retake the House during this decade, unless the GOP wins the presidency in 2016 and the incumbent is wildly unpopular in 2018. Even then, it would be uphill for Democrats.

BTW, my SAM nickname may look harsh at first glance but even Republicans seem to agree. I saw this for the first time today, a Lindsey Graham summary from a couple of months ago:

That's a tremendous paragraph. Perfect summary. Every respected study points to significant economic improvement the next few years. If Romney had won it would have changed the narrative and partially deflected the demographic shift. Obama would have been a slightly less inept Carter, the GOP's reputation as economic savior restored, and Romney as incumbent with his party in power only one term might have threatened 55% of the popular vote in 2016. The GOP upside is still greater than Democratic upside.

The way it works now, if the forecasts are accurate, Bush is stamped as even more inept, Obama moves way up the reputation ladder, and 2016 looks something like 2000, an open race with Democrats at small foundational advantage before candidate-to-candidate specifics enter the equation. If it's Hillary, she would figure to own more strength among whites than Obama, who always trailed Hillary in the white working class vote during the 2008 primaries, notably in par 5 states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Hillary lost, of course, due to Obama's team recognizing the delegate potential in par 3 primaries and caucuses, ones that Hillary's strategists all but ignored.

The question would be Hillary's standing among Hispanics and blacks compared to Obama, in turnout and percentage. She seemingly would have a more difficult path to 50+% approval rating, and therefore 50+% of the vote. I'm sure many analysts would assert Hillary could shove the women's vote to 54% of the total, but that's pushing it, IMO. It's fairly well established that women are 51% in midterms and 53% in general elections. I can't foresee a change.

Republicans seemingly would need an edge in candidate popularity. After all, the last time a Republican won the White House in an open race, whites were 81% of the vote. That was 2000. In 2016 it's all but certain to be 70%.

In 2014 I project Republicans to have a good year. As I mentioned, women drop as percentage of the electorate so the SAM (Simplistic Angry Male) messaging doesn't meet natural resistance. Single women don't show up in midterms. Besides, the GOP structural advantage in the House is astounding after recent gerrymandering. Sam Wang estimates their advantage is as high as 5% before one vote is counted. It's inconceivable that Democrats could retake the House during this decade, unless the GOP wins the presidency in 2016 and the incumbent is wildly unpopular in 2018. Even then, it would be uphill for Democrats.

BTW, my SAM nickname may look harsh at first glance but even Republicans seem to agree. I saw this for the first time today, a Lindsey Graham summary from a couple of months ago:

Of course, my terminology really should be Simplistic Angry White Male but the spelling doesn't cooperate.

Absolutely right. I think a Rubio candidacy would throw a wrench in that some, which would obviously be the Republicans' hope. As far as 2016 goes, this election was all about Obama, not the Democrats. No one on the Democrat side will be able to piggyback off of Obama. Their candidate will have to be someone who already has their own following to really rise above the crop. Hillary Clinton is the only one I can think of at the moment that has that kind of support right now, especially to counter the demographic shakeup that a Rubio candidacy would bring.

I am surprised how many people think that simply nominating a Hispanic would change the numbers for the Republicans. It would be balanced by a loss in the white vote, though.

A Hispanic candidate would throw off the usual demographics to an extent. Beyond that, Rubio has a similar "it" factor to what Obama had going into the 2008 election, the main difference being that Rubio has a lot of experience (former Speaker of the House for Florida) as opposed to Obama's basically being a ghost in the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate. I'm not a supporter. I haven't seen enough from him. This is just how I see the electoral map for 2016 possibly playing out. I don't know how he would fare if a Jeb Bush level candidate jumped in (again, not a supporter, but he is a heavy hitter for the Republicans).

A Hispanic candidate would throw off the usual demographics to an extent. Beyond that, Rubio has a similar "it" factor to what Obama had going into the 2008 election, the main difference being that Rubio has a lot of experience (former Speaker of the House for Florida) as opposed to Obama's basically being a ghost in the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate. I'm not a supporter. I haven't seen enough from him. This is just how I see the electoral map for 2016 possibly playing out. I don't know how he would fare if a Jeb Bush level candidate jumped in (again, not a supporter, but he is a heavy hitter for the Republicans).

Jeb Bush would be a sign that the Republicans haven't learned anything. Putting another Bush on the ballot would be a disaster for the Republicans, regardless of how different Jeb might be from George...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

Re: Eat Your Crow Here

Originally Posted by Locke

Jeb Bush would be a sign that the Republicans haven't learned anything. Putting another Bush on the ballot would be a disaster for the Republicans, regardless of how different Jeb might be from George...

Agreed, his family name has doomed him forevermore. We need a fresh approach that is the polar opposite of the Bush/establishment norm.